ArticlePloS one2026
Face validity of a dyslexia screening instrument for secondary students.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dyslexia is a specific learning difficulty marked by persistent challenges in reading accuracy, fluency, and word recognition despite adequate intelligence and instruction. In secondary schools, many cases remain unidentified due to the absence of screening instruments designed for older students. Early identification is essential for timely intervention, which requires valid and reliable tools. This study evaluated the face validity of a newly developed dyslexia screening instrument for secondary students through expert and test-taker assessments. The 28-item instrument, which focused on cognitive manifestations of dyslexia, was reviewed by ten experts and ten students. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale assessing clarity and comprehensibility, with analyses conducted using the Item-Level Face Validity Index (I-FVI), Scale-Level Face Validity Index by Average Agreement (S-FVI/AVE), and Scale-Level Face Validity Index by Universal Agreement (S-FVI/UA). Expert evaluation demonstrated that 85.7% of items achieved full agreement (I-FVI = 1.00), while scale-level indices exceeded recommended benchmarks (S-FVI/AVE = 0.96; S-FVI/UA = 0.86). Student evaluation also yielded high scale-level agreement (S-FVI/AVE = 0.92; S-FVI/UA = 0.82). A small number of items required linguistic refinement. Consequently, the findings indicate high agreement on the instrument's clarity, comprehensibility, and acceptability, supporting face validity as a preliminary validation step for subsequent psychometric validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.